Marriage is for procreation

[Agoraphobic]

U.S. Supreme court here says marriage is for procreation. Gay people says it is more than that. In Singapore, it is to be eligible to apply for flat. It's getting complicated.

Cheers!

http://news.yahoo.com/lawyers-purpose-marriage-procreation-182818219.html

Lawyers: The purpose of marriage is procreation

By KRISTI EATON

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, lawyers for an Oklahoma clerk said in a new court filing.
The 63-page brief filed Tuesday is the latest volley in a battle between a lesbian couple of 17 years and Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith, who refused to grant them a marriage license in 2009.
Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin subsequently sued to be allowed to marry in their home state, where voters had approved a ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled in Bishop and Baldwin's favor in January this year, and Smith appealed.
Lawyers for Smith argued that marriage is about furthering "potentially procreative sexual relationships into stable unions" rather than recognizing the love and commitment of two people.
"They (plaintiffs) reduce marriage from an institution that exists to benefit children and society, and relegate it to a mere stamp through which the government approves loving, emotional unions between adult couples," they said in the brief filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
They further argued that the Supreme Court has found repeatedly that marriage is fundamental to the survival of the human race. In one of the cases cited, Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the court ruled that the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional.
Bishop and Baldwin said in a statement Tuesday that lawyers for Smith are reducing marriage to nothing.
"They say it is only one thing, when it clearly is not," the two said in the statement. "Marriage is many things to many people, and we believe that it is a right that should (be) granted to all citizens and not a bastion of individual states to discriminate against people within their borders."
LGBT people want nothing more than stable families, many of which include children, and relationships that benefit society, Bishop and Baldwin added.
Lawyers for the couple argued in a brief last month that the marriage ban demeans same-sex couples and their children because it sends the message that their relationships are secondary to those built in traditional families.
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for later this month in the Denver appeals court. The same panel will hear a similar appeal out of Utah on April 10.
Tuesday's brief was the second filed by the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Smith

 

[yellowarse]

Stupid is as stupid does.

So 2 sterile people can't marry even if they're in love with each other? And what about fertile couples who marry but refuse to have kids from the word go? (Know a couple who have decided not to have children for the rest of their lives – they prefer to rear dogs.)

Do all men have to do a sperm count and women check their tubes and ovaries before they're allowed to marry? Maybe all couples should also sign a statutory declaration to start a family within 5 years of marriage to show their commitment to procreation.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I fully agree with you on this subject. It's the couple's choice. Just that traditional views still persist in society. Myself, I see marriage as an institution for the legal protection of children. There are childless couples who are unable to conceive. There are couples who choose not to have any children. They're all private and personal choices. Then came the gay couples and they're breaking down old walls.

Cheers!

Stupid is as stupid does.

So 2 sterile people can't marry even if they're in love with each other? And what about fertile couples who marry but refuse to have kids from the word go? (Know a couple who have decided not to have children for the rest of their lives – they prefer to rear dogs.)

Do all men have to do a sperm count and women check their tubes and ovaries before they're allowed to marry? Maybe all couples should also sign a statutory declaration to start a family within 5 years of marriage to show their commitment to procreation.

 

[tanwahtiu]

how can people at the top of the food chain, the lawmakers, get it all wrong.

marriage is for convenient and nothing to do with sex for procreation only.

Convenient to share toilets, bathrooms and one single large bed together. Without marriage men is at peril and mercy of the lawmakers to put men in jail of all sort of crimes against women.

Women are venomous and without marriage all men will die and go to jail.

Hope this help.

U.S. Supreme court here says marriage is for procreation. Gay people says it is more than that. In Singapore, it is to be eligible to apply for flat. It's getting complicated.

Cheers!

 

[rushifa666]

I fully agree with you on this subject. It's the couple's choice. Just that traditional views still persist in society. Myself, I see marriage as an institution for the legal protection of children. There are childless couples who are unable to conceive. There are couples who choose not to have any children. They're all private and personal choices. Then came the gay couples and they're breaking down old walls.

Cheers!

Let's not mince words. Traditional= backward. A progressive society should not listen to unevolved chimps.

 

[tonychat]

In Thailand, many procreate without getting married..

 

[laksaboy]

Marriage is the legal union of two families and their resources.

In ancient times an alliance could be made by an arranged marriage.

Because families tend to want to continue their bloodline through biological descendants and pass down their wealth to them, it is more useful for marriage to be heterosexual unions.

On one hand, you have the LBGT community who want to have 'marriage equality'.
On the other hand, you have the religious folks who believe marriage is some divine institution, something spiritual.

Both groups of people are idiotic in their own way, and are adding unnecessary meanings to marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with love or spirituality.

 

[tonychat]

U.S. Supreme court here says marriage is for procreation. Gay people says it is more than that. In Singapore, it is to be eligible to apply for flat. It's getting complicated.

you can tell the supreme court to go fuck themselves.. how people see marriage is up to them, and not what others tell them what it is...so fucking stupid.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

you can tell the supreme court to go fuck themselves.. how people see marriage is up to them, and not what others tell them what it is...so fucking stupid.

Sinkie courts are stupid.

 

[OverTheCounter]

Marriage is the legal union of two families and their resources.

In ancient times an alliance could be made by an arranged marriage.

Because families tend to want to continue their bloodline through biological descendants and pass down their wealth to them, it is more useful for marriage to be heterosexual unions.

On one hand, you have the LBGT community who want to have 'marriage equality'.
On the other hand, you have the religious folks who believe marriage is some divine institution, something spiritual.

Both groups of people are idiotic in their own way, and are adding unnecessary meanings to marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with love or spirituality.

Thanks bro. This is the most cogent view of marriage I've read, and I can't help but agree. Marriage is an economic framework designed for the purpose of passing on genes, plain and simple. People have been poisoned by the notion of romantic love, self-sacrifice, divine creation and other nonsense. Love does exist, but you don't need marriage to develop and express love. People who claim that you need to be married in order to have some "legitimacy" to your relationship have basically fallen into the trap set by our forefathers, who have expertly used human emotions to blackmail couples into a procreation framework.

I hold the view that the institution of marriage is even more oppressive and dictatorial than any political dictatorship.

 

[duluxe]

Marriage between a couple of opposite sex can also be for companionship. Without marriage procreation is possible but ended up with illegitimate offsprings . Who's fault ?

 

[yellowarse]

Marriage is the legal union of two families and their resources.

In ancient times an alliance could be made by an arranged marriage.

Because families tend to want to continue their bloodline through biological descendants and pass down their wealth to them, it is more useful for marriage to be heterosexual unions.

What you've said is largely true within the patriarchal tradition, in which legalised unions facilitate the transmission of genes and wealth inheritance through the paternal line.

But marriage for even that purpose is unnecessary. There are matrilineal societies and tribes in which the women of the family raise children often without knowing precisely who the father is. One example is the Mosuo tribe of Yunnan, which practises tisese (走婚, 'walking marriage') where a woman may sleep or cohabit with different men, raise their children in their own homes with the help of womenfolk, and descendants trace their heritage to the maternal line. There's no formalized marriage.

In post-modern societies, particularly in Scandinavia, the institution of marriage is rendered largely redundant even for the purpose of state benefits (health, education, childbirth, tax reliefs) since governments are now increasingly recognizing cohabiting partners as equally entitled to benefits as legally married ones.

 

[Equalisation]

Sex is for recreation.:o

 

[tonychat]

Sex is for recreation.:o

CPF is for desperation.

 

[Equalisation]

CPF is for desperation.

No eat meat results in depression !:oIo:

 

[Agoraphobic]

The responses indicate that Singaporeans are ready to dump "traditional" views. So it is quite possible that the leaders' statements that Singapore's conservative values are not in line with the sentiment of the people. PAP members, time to rewrite the old man's words.

Cheers!